Saturday, November 11, 2006

We already knew that the New York Times, the liberal news media, Dan Rather and the Hillary '08 campaign were rejoicing in the Republican's demise on Tuesday night... but the terrorist organization al Qaeda and the nation of Iran?

This article ought to worry anyone concerned about the safety of our troops, our nation and our way of life.

Friday, November 10, 2006

Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel and the liberals in Congress keep saying they want to stop "rewarding" companies that outsource jobs from the U.S.

I would be interested in getting a copy of and reading the law that's currently on the books in Washington that states that the U.S. Treasury will cut and mail checks to any company that sends jobs overseas.

Or... could it be that what the liberals in Congress are calling "rewards" is actually: lower taxes, lower wages and costs, less government regulations and no unions to deal with? If that's the case, than the "rewards" to ship jobs overseas will, if anything, be more enticing come January 2007 when the new 110th Congress is sworn into office.

I was aware that issue 2 allowed "interested parties" to review the payroll records of a particular company. It seemed to me like a forgone conclusion that this was a labor union ploy to allow unions to review payroll records of a company so they could develop an organizing strategy.

However, last night an alternative strategy was proposed. What if I want to leave Company A for Company B for a new sales job. I interview with Company B and they agree to hire me contingent on a review of my payroll file with the other company. As part of that review, they can discern my current level of pay, disciplinary action, etc.

Company B could use that information as a way of holding my compensation package down since they already know what my current salary is.... therefore the salary I might settle on.

Since too many companies refuse to provide a quality employment reference, it might be a way for a company to do more a thorough pre employment screening prior to hiring.

Since it appears I've exhausted the minimum wage lunacy, I thought I would offer up some tax advise regarding capital gains. I read an interesting piece in a year-end tax planning article about matching capital losses against capital gains.

The conventional wisdom when it comes to year end tax planning is to match any gains you might have against any losses thus "netting" out any capital gains against capital losses and thereby avoiding any capital gains.

I have a slightly different take on this planning technique. I always preach that most people would rather pay taxes on gains than deduct losses. Therefore, as you look through your investments I believe the question that should be asked about each and every investment you have is; "Is there a place where I could better have this money invested".

If the answer is yes you should reinvest it and move it to the investment you think is better... regardless of gain or loss.

An example. Assume you have a stock (let's call it XYZ Co.). the current market value of the stock is $2,500 and you believe that this value is about all this stock is going to do.

Let's also assume that you have a gain of $1,000 in the stock. You might hesitate to sell it because after capital gains tax you are left with a net of $2,300 (15% federal tax, 5% state tax on the gain).

However, let's assume you wait to sell it until February. Now the stock is worth $2,300. However, your investment is now only going to net you $2,140 after tax.

You just lost $160.00 do to the market swing you could have avoided in December.

Conversely, assume you have an investment worth $5,000 but you have a $2,000 loss imbedded in the investment. Many people will tend to want to hold on to the investment in order to recapture the loss on the stock. I would offer that if the stock is a dog and you have little hopes of getting that market value back, cut your losses and move the money into something with some up side. I'd rather see a taxpayer with a $2,000 loss on your tax return then waiting and having another $1,000 - $5,000 loss in the future.

Obviously, you'll never know what the ultimate point to sell will ever be but my point here is that investor should always be evaluating their portfolios independent of the capital gain or loss not yet realized. Work with your advisor periodically and see if they have any opinions as to the future gain or losses in your investment(s).

If you need further clarification about this feel free to call me. I can give you some better information as it pertains to your personal situation.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Another obvious effect of Ohio's minimum wage increase: higher costs to the consumer.

In an article in today's Cincinnati Enquirer, Craig Maier, the president and chief executive officer of Frisch's Restaurants Inc., states that the measure will cost his company about $3 million dollars a year. And who do you think will cover the loss? "The guest will have to pay it," Maier said. Of course, the cost increases won't just be limited to Frisch's and the restaurant industry. Many other businesses will have to pass the costs on the consumer.

So if you notice that the cost of your brawny lad and hot fudge cake goes up soon, blame the voters who approved Issue 2.

I had a conversation with a friend last night; an intelligent, good conservative, I thought, until he told me he voted for the minimum wage and Issue 5. Here's some of the conversation.

I asked him if the wage had been established @ $7.50 or $10.00/hour would he still have voted for it.

His reply; "I'm not sure where the cutoff would have been for me".

"How much should McDonald's pay for a pound of Hamburger?"

"I have no idea"

"But you seem to know much how much they should pay for labor?"

"Look... No one can live on $5.25 and hour"

"Then why shouldn't we make the minimum wage $20.00 with full benefits. I think everyone would be middle class then, wouldn't they?"

"Don't be ridiculous"

That conversation is exactly the point with the minimum wage... I wouldn't dream of telling McDonald's how much to pay their employees any more than telling them that they need to pay $4.50 a pound for high end hamburger. And yet, people somehow think it's OK to tell companies how much they should pay for their labor.

Even at $6.85 an hour, a 40 hour work week nets an annual income of $13,700.00; hardly a wage that could sustain a family. So this person hadn't even considered what the wage would be for the employee to have a sustainable wage.

Then our discussion rolled over to Issue 5 which he voted for. Of course he doesn't smoke so he has no problem telling businesses to not permit smoking on their premises.... 99.999999999% of which he will never visit. It smacks of the nanny state big time.

I'm no smoker, so Issue 5 has no short term, direct impact on me. I will actually enjoy going to bars and restaurants without the smoke.

However, in this country we have turned modern day smokers into the lepers of biblical times.

I think it's disgusting to walk through an airport and see huddled masses all bunched up smoking in a lounge... It's repugnant that our society treats people that way. In my mind it's the epitome of NIMBY, we can ban your vice but don't touch mine.

So if you clowns start coming after my Cheesburgers and Beer, I'm going to shoot you.... assuming you haven't already taken my gun.

Why are liberals so anti-business and anti-capitalism? No industry is perfect and there's bad seeds in every company. But if you're in one of the following industries, watch your back in the coming months because the liberals will probably come knocking:

Oil - This industry, as a whole, produces products that are needed for a vibrant economy and society to function and enjoy a high standard of living. They go through numerous processes and channels to make their product available to the customer. They often have to go to great lengths, deal with dangerous environments and spend large amounts of money to reach their product. They manage production and balance supply and demand across a global marketplace. They have to deal with high governmental regulations, oversight and scrutiny, environmental restrictions and geo-political conditions. Yet, they market their product at a relatively low cost to the consumer (considering what it takes to get to the marketplace) and with profit margins much lower than many other industries.

The above map is the Blue State/Red State comparison from the 2004 Bush Kerry race broken down by county.

As you can see, outside of a few isolated blocks in the Southwest, nearly all the country is red except for the various urban counties around the country.

While I don't have hard evidence handy, I believe most reasonable people can agree with the following comparison between the urban blue areas and the suburban/rural red areas.

The blue areas, in general, have higher taxes than the red areasThey have higher unemploymentThey have more crimeThey have bad schools

The question that comes to mind is... Why would a company locate its operation in one of these blue areas given the scenario noted above?

It also has me wonder about a couple of other questions. Is a democratic leadership responsible for the issues above? Meaning if we put conservative leadership in those areas would the economic circumstance change or remain the same?

Conversely, is a democratic leadership reflective of the values noted above? Meaning, maybe those communities don't care about reducing crime or having a healthy economic base so they vote for the leadership that doesn't make those things priorities.

When I listen to the liberal elites blast conservatives it always has me wanting to respond; "Look at the map, we don't want our communities to look like yours (high unemployment, high crime, bad schools, etc.) .... Maybe you should consider a change to our governance."

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

According to Pat Buchanan, yesterday's election results signify, "The return of the trade-and-jobs issue, front and center, to American politics."

I disagree with his premise, but one sentence in his article made me wonder about the mindset of Ohio voters: "Sherrod Brown, the Democratic challenger to Ohio's GOP Sen. Mike DeWine, also launched assaults on globalization and made the Bush trade deals a central feature of his campaign."

So, Ohio voters have a sense of humor. They voted overwhelmingly for a liberal Democrat who's campaign centered around jobs leaving the state and new job creation, but then they turned their ballots over and voted for Issue 2 (the minimum wage increase). As taxman notes in previous posts- Issue 2 will, no doubt, cost the state thousands of jobs over the long run.

In my mind, to vote for a minimum wage increase is to suggest you know how much an employer should pay it's workers for a particular job. Specifically, a job that requires little to no job skills.

So where do you draw the line?

I'll bet there isn't one person who voted for the increase who pays that wage to a babysitter, lawn mower, gardener, etc. along with the employment taxes related to the pay.

Unfortunately, too many people think companies have this big pot of money available to pay people. That money would either go to the managers or the poor working guy, but that's not how companies operate.

The cold hard fact is; every job pays "x". The "x" is determined by the law of supply and demand. The larger the pool of potential employees, the less the job pays. In a global economy, why would a manufacturer pay "x + $5.00/hr" when they can farm out the job to China where someone will do it for "x"

Every time a government passes some bill that increases the cost of doing business in the city/state/country, they encourage more business to find labor elsewhere.

If you look at a current map of the US and look at which states are growing the fastest, you will see the following. Fewer unions, no minimum wage laws & fewer employment regulations.

If you think it looks different I will leave you with this question; Why hasn't one foreign auto maker moved into Michigan where there is a huuuuuuge surplus of workers available from the old Big Three automakers?

I'm just bummed that a bunch voters thinking they are helping the little guy just voted to do the opposite.

Some will argue that we lost our majority because of scandals at home and challenges abroad. I say, we did not just lose our majority, we lost our way.

While the scandals of the 109th Congress harmed our cause, the greatest scandal in Washington, D.C. is runaway federal spending.

After 1994, we were a majority committed to balanced federal budgets, entitlement reform and advancing the principles of limited government. In recent years, our majority voted to expand the federal government's role in education, entitlements and pursued spending policies that created record deficits and national debt.

This was not in the Contract with America and Republican voters said, 'enough is enough.

Our opponents will say that the American people rejected our Republican vision. I say the American people didn't quit on the Contract with America, we did. And in so doing, we severed the bonds of trust between our party and millions of our most ardent supporters.

As the 110th Congress convenes next year, Republicans must cordially accept defeat and dedicate ourselves to advancing our cause as the loyal opposition knowing that the only way to retake our natural, governing majority, is to renew our commitment to limited government, national defense, traditional values and reform.

In 2004, the advice to the Republicans was "Great election, kid. Don't get cocky." They did.

The results are undeniable... the GOP took a beating yesterday. If you want anymore of my Nostradomus like prognostications, take the Bengals to win the Super Bowl.

Outside of my underestimated pounding, a couple of things of note; In Ohio, it appears that while the GOP lost the big elections they did not get totally trounced. Steve Chabot, despite being in a 50 - 50 district won by a bigger margin than Jean Schmidt, who looks like she'll barely win in a largely GOP district. Once again, it proves to me that officials who are consistently conservative will always beat a liberal despite any national referendum against the ruling party.

Somehow, people understood enough of Issues 4 & 5 difference to vote their conscience which I believe was to ban smoking statewide.

People in Hamilton County were also astute enough to combine Heimlich and the issue he help craft, issue 12. Unfortunately, they both lost. Just as a note to Heimlich, those Robocalls are obnoxious and are counter productive.

Overall, while I'm disappointed the democrats took over the House & Senate (can you imagine Air America in Washington). The fact of the matter is, I do believe the GOP is in desparate need of a total cleansing. These guys never knew how to govern. As a result, the electorate took it away from them.

Hopefully it will be a lesson learned for the next two years while they get to eat cake.

George Voinovich - Did you watch last night, because you're probably next.

National political party is currently seeking applicants to run in it's 2008 elections. Candidates need to be able to consistantly articulate conservative values such as low taxes, faith in God and the individual over government and vote accordingly.

If you are a Liberal, your name ends in Taft, Noe, Foley, Ney, Abramhoff, or Cunningham, are likely to take bribes, or can only run a campaign against gay marriage, you need not apply.

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

I know the polls say the GOP is going to take a beating today but I think all the polls have an institutional Democratic bias. Not because of anything nefarious by the pollsters but because I think Conservatives are so much less likely to talk about their politics with pollsters or if they are like me, they lie.

I've noticed this with yard signs. I believe fervent Democrats will always be more willing to post yards signs than Republicans. Republicans just always show up at the poll the counts.... the voting booth. I will never put a political sign in my yard or a bumper sticker on my car for fear of being vandalized (it happened at a Bush rally in '04).

This year I believe there will be a lot of Republicans holding their noses as they cast a vote for Dewine, Blackwell, Montgomery, et al. But they will show up and there will be some that won't show up at all because they're tired of the choice between crap or vomit.

Despite a better GOP turnout than the polls are predicting. I do think the GOP in Ohio is in for a bad day. Of course, the way Ohio Republicans have governed for the past 14 years, we can take solace that 2 years from now we'll still be one the worst business states in the union.

Monday, November 06, 2006

One of the things I can't stand is the view point that if you are a conservative you need to vote for Mike Dewine over Sherrod Brown even though Dewine is a "moderate"... whatever that means. Anything else would be a wasted vote.

The fact of the matter is I consider any vote for Mike Dewine a wasted vote. He knows full and well that conservatives would never abandon him when push comes to shove. But as far as I'm concerned he abandoned us. Quite honestly, I don't really know how the voting would be much different if we had Celeste, Metzenbaum and Glenn v. Taft, Voinovich and Dewine.

Dewine's ANWAR vote was the final straw for me. Who exactly was he catering to on that vote?

I know most people think that not voting for Dewine threatens Senate leadership and potential Court appointees. I say that it's time that conservatives send the message "Conservatives win", moderates can be Democrats and lose.